In the first moment, I simply thought "this is sick" - the use of nuclear weapons by the USA might very well encourage others like India and Pakistan to use theirs, the result being nuclear contamination of large portions of the planet's surface.

Then, I thought that this might be intended to be a clear warning to dictators and rogue states across the globe. But that's when I read "The report clearly referred to nuclear arms as a "tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them", he added."

Together with "According to the paper, the report lists three situations in which the weapons could be used[:] [...] "against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack"." I imagine the following situation: US forces are to attack the bunker of Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea. They will not be able to harm the building using conventional "bunker buster" bombs, so they will resort to "mini nukes", breaking the taboo of "using them first". With that, they disestablish the "balance of horror" that kept the cold war cold and provide an example for others that think they're now entitled to use nuclear weapons whenever their targets cannot be achieved using conventional weapons.

Chinese nuclear weapons erasing Taiwan? "We don't have enough bombers to fight the threat to our country any other way."

North Korean nuclear bombs exploding over the DMZ? "South Korean soldiers were firing into our direction, and we did not have anything else to push them back." Poor roe deer that stepped on a landmine.

Israeli nuclear weapons killing the population of Ramallah? I don't want to imagine.

Considering what these new plans might set off, I'm quite sure many people would wish for living back in the cold war once the "it" has started.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, what do you think? Is developing a new nuclear warfare strategy a right thing to do in these times of globalized threats and terrorism, or is it too dangerous considering the possibility of large-scale nuclear wars?

This is NOT new! The United States along with every other nuclear power has always had lists of possible targets. More anti-American tripe from the BBC. U.S. nuclear weapons are defensive. In other words, they won't be used unless someone else uses some kind of WMD against the United States or our Allies.

I don't believe that any rational leader of any Western or other country would advocate the use of nukes lightly. Remember that the news media often quotes only sections of what a person really says, and that can change the entire course of the person's statement.

As an example of the above, look at how the media might "quote" my previous statement...

"Remember that the news media often quotes what a person really says". Now, didn't that just drastically change what I said? Of course and THAT sells newspapers! These people are in the business of selling themselves. Think I'm in left-field with this? Take a gander at this little article...

The New York Times has been a trusted news source for many, many years. Now, if they can have a reporter who "misrepresents" his stories, what's to stop someone at the BBC from doing the same?

The point is to take these stories with a grain of salt. Keep tabs on the Congressional http://www.congress.gov and Senate http://www.senate.gov record and the White House site http://www.whitehouse.gov for information on upcoming bills, and news releases. When you see something on those sites that is as scary as this could be, THEN start the letter/e-mail campaign against it!

MxCtrlr Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.

DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(

Is the BBC funded by the government? If so, than that would be a matter of keeping it far from having to sell itself. As for what you've said about the media selling its products by all means, that's quite true. Do you know "Tomorrow Never Dies"? That's a nice view of media influence for the hell of it.

Nuclear weapons have for decades been a weird thing.
To the military people they're effectively just very powerful bombs but their political masters have turned them into something else, something beyond the military implications of using them.

Nuclear weapons have for decades been a weird thing.
To the military people they're effectively just very powerful bombs but their political masters have turned them into something else, something beyond the military implications of using them.

Bingo! Not until the advent of the ICBM and push button annihilation were nuclear weapons viewed as political tools instead of military ones.

"Nuclear weapons have for decades been a weird thing.
To the military people they're effectively just very powerful bombs but their political masters have turned them into something else, something beyond the military implications of using them.

Bingo! Not until the advent of the ICBM and push button annihilation were nuclear weapons viewed as political tools instead of military ones."

It's like that with all WMDs, just as a recently provided example drastically showed. Personally, I consider it an advance that WMDs are no longer simply considered very powerful weapons - since that sounds like "Wow, cool, we can kill a million of them with just ONE bomb!"